Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Harsh86_Patel

Vedic culture and its modern relevance

62 posts in this topic

There are 5 videos see all.

Kasanas is a published scholar and is a avid supporter of Out of India theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting video. Wow, too much information and it do make me wonder. Great share!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kazanas is unfortunately deluded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kazanas is unfortunately deluded.

Please elaborate.Why do you feel so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Kasanas is a published scholar and is a avid supporter of Out of India theory.

Just being published doesn't count for much, esp. now in the era of self- and other forms of on-demand publishing. And it doesn't help that you post something from "you can post anything here" YouTube. I can publish, too, on this topic, without any particular knowledge on the subject and that publishing doesn't make it ipso facto worth saving from oblivion.

-Jaylemurph

Edited by jaylemurph
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the preponderance of genetic and archeological evidence leans toward the Kurgan Model? The Out of India model has been in disfavor for quite some time and is seen as being supported only by Indian ultranationalists.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just being published doesn't count for much, esp. now in the era of self- and other forms of on-demand publishing. And it doesn't help that you post something from "you can post anything here" YouTube. I can publish, too, on this topic, without any particular knowledge on the subject and that publishing doesn't make it ipso facto worth saving from oblivion.

-Jaylemurph

I agree that being published doesn't count for much hence my disregard for many mainstream theories.Though would like to mention he was published in JIES and the paper was focused on refuting some idiots like Witzel and in support of the OIT.

http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/IIR.pdf

Found it very interesting and enlightening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the preponderance of genetic and archeological evidence leans toward the Kurgan Model? The Out of India model has been in disfavor for quite some time and is seen as being supported only by Indian ultranationalists.

No it is the contrary,those who fail to acknowledge the OIT are usually European supremacist and Imperialists somewhat aligned with Hitler and his Aryan fantasies. Genetic and archaeological evidence suggest cultural continuity in the Indian subcontinent with no signs of war/invasion/mass immigration. The stupid Aryan migration theory (into India) suggests that the Aryans came to India as immigrants peacefully and gradually wiped of the local culture and renamed all the rivers and places peacefully....lol.

The only reason that some truely respectable scholars find it difficult to accept the OIT is that they would have to acknowledge a series of migrations at different point of time out of India rather then one single huge migration....i don't find this objection to be valid at all.

Another interesting fact- Kurru-gana literally translates as the soldiers of Kurru who lost the 'Mahabharata' war and were banished somewhere in the 4 th millenium BC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have only a superficial acquaintance with the arguments between Indian and Pakistani ultra-nationalists about the history of the subcontinent and its peoples. Neither are in line with archaeological and linguistic studies, and so I tend to view both as ideologically based myth systems not unlike those of the extremes of Christianity and Islam and Judaism elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol...India and Pakistan.Pakistan is a relatively new born country and the genetic makeup of the majority of their population is same as the Indians.The divide is based purely on religion and nothing else from the Pakistan side.Which arguments are you referring to when you say that none are supported by archaeological and linguistic studies?. And since you mentioned Christianity/Judaism/Any other religion in the world VS Islam is the current scenario in the Islamic world. Pakistan which we humorously refer to as Porkistan here in India claims in its history books that Pakistan was captured by India before it achieved independence post 1947 and claim that it was always a sperate sovreign before India absorbed it.....lol XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it is the contrary,those who fail to acknowledge the OIT are usually European supremacist and Imperialists somewhat aligned with Hitler and his Aryan fantasies. Genetic and archaeological evidence suggest cultural continuity in the Indian subcontinent with no signs of war/invasion/mass immigration. The stupid Aryan migration theory (into India) suggests that the Aryans came to India as immigrants peacefully and gradually wiped of the local culture and renamed all the rivers and places peacefully....lol.

The only reason that some truely respectable scholars find it difficult to accept the OIT is that they would have to acknowledge a series of migrations at different point of time out of India rather then one single huge migration....i don't find this objection to be valid at all.

Another interesting fact- Kurru-gana literally translates as the soldiers of Kurru who lost the 'Mahabharata' war and were banished somewhere in the 4 th millenium BC

I thought that DNA studies have shown there never was any migrations westward out of India to any great degree. The Persian genetics are much closer to those northwest of India. And the linguistics appear to follow this trend also. The R1a haplogroup has been shown to originate near the Caspian Sea, and spread out from there. DNA studies on mummys and buried remains from 10,000 to 5,000 years ago have shown this. And undoubtably these people were the ones who spread the Indo European languages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that DNA studies have shown there never was any migrations westward out of India to any great degree. The Persian genetics are much closer to those northwest of India. And the linguistics appear to follow this trend also. The R1a haplogroup has been shown to originate near the Caspian Sea, and spread out from there. DNA studies on mummys and buried remains from 10,000 to 5,000 years ago have shown this. And undoubtably these people were the ones who spread the Indo European languages.

Oddly, it seems that the only people who seriously support an Out of India theory are Indian. Would that there were some way to understand that fact...

In completely unrelated news, I'm promulgating a theory I call the Out of Brooklyn theory, which suggests Indo European culture actually arose just outside of Prospect Park (Park Slope, actually) and then manifested in the Pontic Steppes. With no intervening steps. It's all the rage within the Borough of Brooklyn, and all the people who don't support it are raving bigots who want to keep the Hipsterati of Williamsburg down, and they are happy to cover up "rational" info that disagrees with it. And if we have to stalwartly ignore the findings of Legitimate History, Genetics and Archeaology, well then, we're better people for thinking on our own and "finding" the odd isolated fact that confirms our ideas.

--Jaylemurph

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oddly, it seems that the only people who seriously support an Out of India theory are Indian. Would that there were some way to understand that fact...

That is what I thought....

In completely unrelated news, I'm promulgating a theory I call the Out of Brooklyn theory, which suggests Indo European culture actually arose just outside of Prospect Park (Park Slope, actually) and then manifested in the Pontic Steppes.

I blame The Doctor. Clearly this is the result of Time Lord meddling. Call Torchwood!!

There is also always the "Out of Nothing" Theory that comes from fundamentalist Young Earth Christians.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that DNA studies have shown there never was any migrations westward out of India to any great degree. The Persian genetics are much closer to those northwest of India. And the linguistics appear to follow this trend also. The R1a haplogroup has been shown to originate near the Caspian Sea, and spread out from there. DNA studies on mummys and buried remains from 10,000 to 5,000 years ago have shown this. And undoubtably these people were the ones who spread the Indo European languages.

How do you conclude that the R1 haplogroup originated near the Caspian sea? lol....and then spread out from there?DNA studies on mummies having R1 haplogroup doesn't mean that it originated there geographically." And undoubtedly these people were the ones who spread the Indo....." lol XD. You are more sure then the people you are quoting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oddly, it seems that the only people who seriously support an Out of India theory are Indian. Would that there were some way to understand that fact...

In completely unrelated news, I'm promulgating a theory I call the Out of Brooklyn theory, which suggests Indo European culture actually arose just outside of Prospect Park (Park Slope, actually) and then manifested in the Pontic Steppes. With no intervening steps. It's all the rage within the Borough of Brooklyn, and all the people who don't support it are raving bigots who want to keep the Hipsterati of Williamsburg down, and they are happy to cover up "rational" info that disagrees with it. And if we have to stalwartly ignore the findings of Legitimate History, Genetics and Archeaology, well then, we're better people for thinking on our own and "finding" the odd isolated fact that confirms our ideas.

--Jaylemurph

Most Indians don't even know about the out of india theory....they still think that the Aryan Invasion was an actual event as they were taught that in school text books. Most people who support out of India theory are people from outside India.Similarly most people who realise the value of Ancient Indian knowledge and Spirituality are people who are not from India,Indians do not know the worth of their own culture and knowledge.

No archaeological facts are being ignored while suggesting out of India theory.You can be happy in repeating what the Linguists say or what the monopoly club say about these theories.They have been wrong every time but they never give up...and why should they give up? since every time they come up with a bull**** idea there are a lot of people who mindlessly accept them and repeat and promote them like they are facts.

Never mind you can wait till the mainstream starts promoting the Out of India theory before you start quoting it as fact and ridiculing other theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most Indians don't even know about the out of india theory....they still think that the Aryan Invasion was an actual event as they were taught that in school text books. Most people who support out of India theory are people from outside India.

I'd like to see some sort of reference in support of the above bolded statement.

You can be happy in repeating what the Linguists say or what the monopoly club say about these theories.They have been wrong every time but they never give up...and why should they give up? since every time they come up with a bull**** idea there are a lot of people who mindlessly accept them and repeat and promote them like they are facts.

Sounds like a plan. I choose to ignore linguists, then.

Oops. I just found out that some Indian linguists support the Out of India theory. Hmmm. Must be bull*** then.

Harte

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Most Indians don't even know about the out of india theory....they still think that the Aryan Invasion was an actual event as they were taught that in school text books. Most people who support out of India theory are people from outside India.

I wasn't aware popularity of a theory had a bearing on its verity*. Which works out well for my OoB (Out of Brooklyn) theory. I feel like I need to work in another B to the theory name for some reason. It just seems like the right idea...

Similarly most people who realise the value of Ancient Indian knowledge and Spirituality are people who are not from India,Indians do not know the worth of their own culture and knowledge.

I'm so not going to unpack that idea. Let's just say that it's been a lead-in to lots of Really Bad Ideas throughout history.

No archaeological facts are being ignored while suggesting out of India theory.

Except all the ones that are inconvenient to its' argument. The ones virtually everyone else use to invalidate it.

You can be happy in repeating what the Linguists say or what the monopoly club say about these theories.

Yep. I'm happy to concede people with greater knowledge of a subject know more than I do. I'm humble like that. ;)

They have been wrong every time but they never give up...and why should they give up?

Quite right. When you fail at something the first time, why bother to ever get it right? Like Homer Simpsons says, "If at first you don't succeed, learn to never try." The only people who /learn/ from their mistakes are the weak ones.

...since every time they come up with a bull**** idea there are a lot of people who mindlessly accept them and repeat and promote them like they are facts.

That's right. Thank the stars /you/ were not at all like those kinds of people. (However, one of your statements above make a great deal more sense now...) You see straight to the heart of that matter, you.

Never mind you can wait till the mainstream starts promoting the Out of India theory before you start quoting it as fact and ridiculing other theories.

It's a deal! When the mainsteam linguistic community does a complete volte-face, I will no longer mock thr OoI model. But you have to play, too. When they accept the OoB model instead, you'll have to work fuggettaboutit into at least three setences a day.

Hey, that was fun. I haven't done this kind of line by line critique posts in /long/ time. It almost makes me miss Puzzler or Anagram von Orion. Or whatever his name was.

--Jaylemurph

*Although that pretty much is exactly your point, so it seems to me like you're arguing both sides here.

Edited by jaylemurph
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Orion Von Koch. AKA the other "he who shall not be named" (the main one is that dragon guy, remember?)

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Draconic Chronicler :td:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Orion Von Koch. AKA the other "he who shall not be named" (the main one is that dragon guy, remember?)

Harte

Draconic Chronicler :td:

Stop, I say! Their names must not be said!

I remember both of them. Painfully so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see some sort of reference in support of the above bolded statement.

Sounds like a plan. I choose to ignore linguists, then.

Oops. I just found out that some Indian linguists support the Out of India theory. Hmmm. Must be bull*** then.

Harte

Some ?? majority of Indian linguists support the Aryan Invasion/Migration theory. Why the support it is a whole different ball game.

References-

1.

The opinion of the majority of professional archaeologists interviewed seems to be that there is no archaeological evidence to support external Indo-Aryan origins. Thus while the linguistic community stands firm with the Kurgan hypothesis archaeological community tends to be more agnostic.

According to one archaeologist, J.M. Kenoyer:

"Although the overall socioeconomic organization changed, continuities in
, subsistence practices, settlement organization, and some regional
show that the indigenous population was not displaced by invading hordes of
speaking people. For many years, the ‘invasions’ or ‘migrations’ of these Indo-Aryan-speaking Vedic/Aryan tribes explained the decline of the Indus civilization and the sudden rise of urbanization in the Ganga-
valley. This was based on simplistic models of culture change and an uncritical reading of Vedic texts..."

The examination of 300 skeletons from the Indus Valley Civilization and comparison of those skeletons with modern-day Indians by Kenneth Kennedy has also been a supporting argument for the OIT. Kennedy claims that the Harappan inhabitants of the Indus Valley Civilization are no different from the inhabitants of India in the following millennia. However, this does not rule out one version of the Aryan Migration Hypothesis which suggests that the only "migration" was one of languages as opposed to a complete displacement of the indigenous population.

2.

There are twelve accepted branches of the Indo-European family. The two Indo-Iranian branches, Indic (Indo-Aryan) and Iranian, dominate the eastern cluster, historically spanning Scythia, Iran and Northern India. While the exact sequence in which the different branches separated or migrated away from a homeland, linguists generally agree that Anatolian was the first branch to be separated from the remaining body of Indo-European.

Additionally, Graeco-Aryan isoglosses seem suggestive that Greek and Indo-Iranian may have shared a common homeland for awhile after the splitting of the other IE branches. Such a homeland could be northwestern India (which is preferred by proponents of the OIT) - or the Pontic steppes (as preferred by the mainstream supporters of the Kurgan hypothesis).

Mainstream opponents to the OIT (e.g. Hock) agree that while the data of linguistic isoglosses do make the OIT improbable it is not enough to unequivocally reject it, so that it may be considered a viable alterative to mainstream views, similar to the status of the Armenian or Anatolianhypotheses.

3.

The timeline of the breakup of Proto-Indo-European, according to what Elst calls the "emerging non-invasionist model" is as follows: During the 6th millennium BC, the Proto-Indo-Europeans were living in the Punjab region of Northern India. As the result of demographic expansion, they spread into Bactria as the Kambojas. The Paradas moved further and inhabited theCaspian coast and much of Central Asia while the Cinas moved northwards and inhabited the Tarim Basin in northwestern China, forming the Tocharians group of I-E speakers. These groups were Proto-Anatolian and inhabited that region by 2000 BC. These people took the oldest form of the Proto Indo-European (PIE) language with them and, while interacting with people of the Anatolian and Balkan region, transformed it into its own dialect. While inhabiting Central Asia they discovered the uses of the horse, which they later sent back to Urheimat. Later on during their history, they went on to take Western Europe and thus spread the Indo-European languages to that region. During the 4th millennium BC, civilization in India was evolving to become the urban Indus Valley Civilization. During this time, the PIE languages evolved to Proto-Indo-IranianSome time during this period, the Indo-Iranians began to separate as the result of internal rivalry and conflict, with the Iranians expanding westwards towards Mesopotamia and Persia, these possibly were the Pahlavas. They also expanded into parts of Central Asia. By the end of this migration, India was left with the Proto-Indo-Aryans. At the end of the Mature Harappan period, the Sarasvati river began drying up and the remainder of Indo-Aryans split into separate categories. Some travelled westwards and became the Mitanni people by around 1500 BC. The Mitanni are known for their links to Vedic culture, after assimilating and establishing a presence in the Hurrian homeland, they established a culture very similar to that of Vedic India. Thus the Mitanni language is still considered Indo-Aryan. Others travelled eastwards and inhabited the Gangetic basin while others travelled southwards and interacted with theDravidian people.

4.

The theory has most recently been defended by S.G. Talageri, Koenraad Elst, and Nicholas Kazanas. Nicholas Kazanas presented a paper in JIES, where Kazanas' arguments were rejected by no less than five mainstream scholars, among them JP Mallory. In the latter issue of JIES, Kazanas responded to all his critics in the article ‘Final Reply’. OIT proponents argue that the language dispersal model proposed by Johanna Nichols in the paper "The Epicentre of the Indo-European Linguistic Spread" can be adapted to support OIT.. They shift the locus of the IE spread from the vicinity of ancient Bactria-Sogdiana as proposed by her to Northwestern India.

Current OIT proponents propose that there is no necessary link between the fact that Sanskrit is not the oldest form of IE and the hypothesis that India is not the oldest habitat of IE. It is perfectly possible that a Kentum language which we now label as PIE was spoken in India, that some of its speakers emigrated and developed Kentum languages like Germanic and Tokharic, and that subsequently the PIE language in its Indian homeland developed and satemized into Sanskrit (Elst 1996-227).

Major Criticism

  • Postulating the PIE homeland in northern India requires positing a larger number of migrations over longer distances than it would do if it were postulated to be near the center of linguistic diversity within the family. That is, it is argued that a homeland in Central Asia is the simpler theory ( Dyen 1965, p. 15 cited in Bryant 2001, p. 142)Mallory (1989)

  • Indic PIE languages show influence from contact with Dravidian and Munda - if PIE were spoken close to Dravidian and Munda all PIE languages would show these features. That is the contact between Indic and Dravidian/Munda must have occurred after the split of PIE meaning that proto-Indic speakers would have moved into contact with Dravidians and Mundans(Parpola 2005).. (Mallory 1989)[page # needed].

  • To postulate the migration of PIE speakers out of India necessitates an earlier dating of the Rigveda than is normally accepted by Vedic scholars in order to make a deep enough period of migration to allow for the longest migrations to be completed.(Mallory 1989)[page # needed]

Sorces-

http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/aid/keaitlin1.html

http://indo-european.eu/wiki/index.php/Out_of_India_theory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware popularity of a theory had a bearing on its verity*. Which works out well for my OoB (Out of Brooklyn) theory. I feel like I need to work in another B to the theory name for some reason. It just seems like the right idea...

I'm so not going to unpack that idea. Let's just say that it's been a lead-in to lots of Really Bad Ideas throughout history.

Except all the ones that are inconvenient to its' argument. The ones virtually everyone else use to invalidate it.

Yep. I'm happy to concede people with greater knowledge of a subject know more than I do. I'm humble like that. ;)

Quite right. When you fail at something the first time, why bother to ever get it right? Like Homer Simpsons says, "If at first you don't succeed, learn to never try." The only people who /learn/ from their mistakes are the weak ones.

That's right. Thank the stars /you/ were not at all like those kinds of people. (However, one of your statements above make a great deal more sense now...) You see straight to the heart of that matter, you.

It's a deal! When the mainsteam linguistic community does a complete volte-face, I will no longer mock thr OoI model. But you have to play, too. When they accept the OoB model instead, you'll have to work fuggettaboutit into at least three setences a day.

Hey, that was fun. I haven't done this kind of line by line critique posts in /long/ time. It almost makes me miss Puzzler or Anagram von Orion. Or whatever his name was.

--Jaylemurph

*Although that pretty much is exactly your point, so it seems to me like you're arguing both sides here.

How do you decide that someone knows more then you? Is it enough that they claim that they know more,are we to not to rely on our own critical thinking faculties? Approach of repeating only what the mainstream says sounds more like a religious tendency. Agreed everyone makes mistakes but the true scholars always entertain alternatives even when they are fully convinced of the contrary, that in my opinion would be true humility and a scholarly approach. Nothing of value can be achieved with a closed mind and by ridiculing alternatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you decide that someone knows more then you? Is it enough that they claim that they know more,are we to not to rely on our own critical thinking faculties?

It is, as you say, a matter of critical thinking faculties, insofar as I can reasonably and honestly apply those skills. If I (like a lot of people here) grossly over-estimate what I know, and somehow equate twenty minutes of internet research time on a given subject, then I lose the ability to correctly judge others' authority. Generally speaking, I the less I know about a subject the more I'm inclined to trust people with advanced degrees in that subject. It isn't fool-proof obviously, and I essentially have the ability to increase my own knowledge of a subject by study to be able to further rate others. And it's also possible for someone without advanced degrees to be very knowledgable.

Then it becomes a matter of recognizing how people use data and then use analysis to interpret the data logically. If people (like the L, for instance) want to talk about linguistics, but uses terminology from 75 or 100 years ago, this indicates he either doesn't know what he's talking about or is using data that is no longer useful. Or if he uses rational data to make irrational points -- a muppet once used the word orange in a sketch, therefore all muppets originate in Kerala, for instance.

Importantly, (like science) it's an on-going process rather than a one-time event, where you have the ability to change your mind. But like science, there are still general trends that it is more useful to assume are true than to pick out constant exceptions.

Approach of repeating only what the mainstream says sounds more like a religious tendency. Agreed everyone makes mistakes but the true scholars always entertain alternatives even when they are fully convinced of the contrary, that in my opinion would be true humility and a scholarly approach. Nothing of value can be achieved with a closed mind and by ridiculing alternatives.

It is better to entertain alternatives, but not all alternatives are equal. It's deeply unfair and deeply undemocratic, yet it's undeniably true. Not all viewpoints are equally valid. I can theorize the moon spontaneously reformed itself out of Spam (or even Amour Potted Meat Food Product), but even if I truly, deeply, honestly believe that, should we send new missions to the moon just to check its' make-up? Obviously not.

--Jaylemurph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you conclude that the R1 haplogroup originated near the Caspian sea? lol....and then spread out from there?DNA studies on mummies having R1 haplogroup doesn't mean that it originated there geographically." And undoubtedly these people were the ones who spread the Indo....." lol XD. You are more sure then the people you are quoting.

I'm sorry, but I usually go with the side that has the best... most... evidence. And that is the Kurgan Theory in this case. Even if the OIT is right, Indo-European would have HAD to have gone through that region. It must have. The fact that the R1A group does not show in India till a little later, and... not in as great a percentage... shows that it immigrated there, and started somewhere else. That somewhere else is generally considered to be the steppes around the Caspian.

If you don't think the people near the Caspian spread Indo-European, then how do you propose it got to Europe? Technically my comment is true with the Kurgan Theory or the OIT.

You seem to LOL without cause and just to try to appear Authoritative.

Stop, I say! Their names must not be said!

I remember both of them. Painfully so.

Come on... I loved Draconic's discussions. "Nessie is a fallen draconic angel", "Mokele Membe is a fallen draconic angel"....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on... I loved Draconic's discussions. "Nessie is a fallen draconic angel", "Mokele Membe is a fallen draconic angel"....

I have to say, I never minded him much, either. He was pin-point focused on his dragons and almost never wanted to talk about anything non-Dragon related. And he never claimed any non-Dragon expertise. Other than, you know, /everything/ for him was dragon-centred. He even had a sense of humor.

Now, OvK: I still never figured out why someone who knew everything posted here, and then refused to discuss any points. I assumed he, like Jesus, ascended directly to the Empyrean to tell god directly what he was doing wrong.

--Jaylemurph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.